why are these photos rejected

[Sameer23608977731j]

hi, 

can you please help me in figuring out why these photos are being rejected? Many thanks!

[daniellei4510]

Not quite sure what the object is under the green umbrella. The histogram shows some blown out highlights and loss of details in shadows, but they were minimal.

Lack of details in the shadows and blown-out highlights. (idiotinthebeachsun)

Iceberg (same as above, and you might need to remove the name on the boat.).

All minor and fixable problems, unless someone finds additional issues.

[Jill_C]

The first one doesn't appear to be sharply focused enough. The second one has blownout areas and noise. The boat in the 3rd image is quite blurry, and the sky is noisy.

[Abambo]

You should tell us. What reason did Adobe give to you?

Umbrella: exposes artefacts typical of over sharpening for small sensor cameras.

The shadows are strange, as if the picture is missing contrast, the saturation is strong.

There is a halo with the beach flag:

The picture is overall a bit noisy, despite this strange flat shadow gray. Those are quality issues.

In addition, I would say that the beach flag could be an IP violation, but I'm not sure about that. You can, however, recognize the Yamaha logo on one of the boats. That surely is an IP violation.

Sunset:

Artefacts on the water:

and the rock-water border:

In addition, you have clipping of the whites, and then you brought them down, getting them a flat grey. When the highlights got clipped, you can't bring back details.

The sky is dithered, like on old GIF images.

There are also those typical GIF clipping lines, and the clouds give the same effect. That happened when you took a full colour (oversaturated) photograph and reduced the colours to 256 and less. (GIF only displays 256 colours max)

Iceberg:

When composing images, you should do it correctly:

The image is noisy. But it looks partially as if you used a Gaussian soft filter to clear out details.

If you edit your pictures, do so, that it is not obvious.

The boat, with some phantasy, can be identified, and it would be identifiable without any doubt if the photograph was of the required quality.

[Ricky336]

Hello,

I guess they were taken with a drone camera. The quality when zoomed in begins to show artifacts, which could be a problem if the buyer wants to enlarge them. For a small screen - no worries - it's not noticeable.

Another consideration is that they do seem a bit too oversaturated.

Iceberg photo, maybe the white balance. The buyer can add their filtering effect to get the mood they want. In this picture, I would say that the overall tone is a bit too magenta.

And with the iceberg, it appears you have done some blurring, as it can be noticed on the edge of the iceberg and the sky.

[Nancy OShea]

Adobe Stock customers expect the highest visual and technical quality for use in commercial projects -- print, digital and merchandise.

• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html/stock/contributor/help/photography-illustr...
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/how-to/tips-stock-image-acceptance.html
  ===========
  Model/Property Releases:
  https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/model-release.html
  https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/property-release.html
  
  

It's important to consider your work as a customer will.

• Have you compared your work with other Stock inventory in these keywords? 
• Is yours as good or better than what Stock has?
• As a customer, would you buy it?
• What would you use it for?